I remember in 1968, while a sophomore in college, watching Star Trek - Starship USS Enterprise, with Captain Kirk, i.e., William Shatner. It was a favorite at the student center.

The Star Trek TV series began in 1966. Who has forgotten these famous words?

"Space: The final frontier, These are the voyages of the Starship, Enterprise, Its 5 year mission, To explore strange new worlds, To seek out new life and new civilizations, To boldly go where no man has gone before."

But, most people watching Star Trek at that time understood that Star Trek was science fiction and that man would never be able to do anything like what happened in that series, e.g., speed of light travel, e.g., warp factor 10 (i.e., infinite velocity), beaming people and objects from spaceship to spaceship or spaceship to planet, shields that could stop protons missiles (whatever proton missiles were), tractor beams that stopped spaceships and forced them into the bays of huge spaceships, traveling between stars within days, laser guns that could completely disintegrate humans and objects.

Most of the science fiction movies created before 1966 were somewhat lame; and no one really took them seriously, e.g., Abbott and Costello Go to Mars (1953). There was one earlier science fiction movie that many believed was true, "The Angry Red Planet" (1959). Man has always been fascinated with life on Mars, which has never been proven, and UFOs, which also have never been proven.

Then came 2001: A Space Odyssey ( 1968), Silent Running (1972), Logan"s Run (1976) then Star Wars in 1977, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Alien (1979), Aliens (1986), etc.

Because of these movies and series like Star Trek, too many people became detached from reality.

The movie "Silent Running" planted the seed that greenhouses and growing plants for food in space was easy; and the movies like "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and "Aliens" created the idea that terraforming planets was as easy preparing "Shake N Bake" food, i.e., "Shake N Bake" colonies. "Total Recall" was another movie where terraforming Mars and creating huge mining operations were possible. Somehow, apparently magically, in all these spaceships and colonies, artificial gravity, water, and breathable air were created.

All these were great science fiction movies, but you were never supposed to lose touch with reality.

However, the mindset of many people was beginning to change, to switch from reality based thinking to science-fiction based thinking. Instead of understanding that these movies were only science fiction, many people became detached from reality and began thinking that it was only a matter of time before man could do the same things. A totally delusional thinking about space travel emerged, which permeates the youth today.

This delusional thinking completely ignores the physical realities of space and space travel.

This delusional thinking has created a bunch of space junkies that believe:

"Sending manned spacecraft to Mars, Jupiter and beyond is just a tad more difficult than landing men on the moon.

"Colonizing moons and planets, e.g., the Earth"s moon, Mars, Europa, etc. is just slightly more difficult than building the ISS " International Space Station, which is only 220 miles from earth and took over 12 year and 31 space missions to complete at a cost of $150 Billion, which makes it the most expensive object ever created by man. And, this does not include the hundreds of Billions that were spent by Russia. And, the 150 Billion, if adjusted to 2013 dollars and including what was spent by Russia, would most likely be closer to a trillion dollars.

"Terraforming planets is as easy as it was in the science fiction movies "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" "Aliens," and "Total Recall."

"Growing all the food that is needed to survive on long space flights can be grown on the spaceships or on the planets once we get there. NSAS has not been able to grow anything edible on the ISS, not even for one meal, not even a carrot. NASA hasn"t even grown a sprig of mint at the space station in 12 years. From seeding to maturity, mint takes about 90 days. Carrots take from 60 to 75 days.

"Creating breathable air and drinkable water on spaceships on long spaceflights (e.g., trip to Mars) or on space colonies will be as easy as it is on the ISS.

"Creating artificial gravity is like making coffee, despite the fact that NASA has not been able to do that in over 30 years, and has no idea how to actually do it (i.e., what equipment would be needed), just theories.

"The concept of creating artificial gravity (AG) was first popularized by Wernher von Braun, Arthur C. Clarke, and others many years ago. Stanley Kubrick"s 1968 movie "2001 : A Space Odyssey" brought this concept to the forefront of public interest, although gaps in fundamental knowledge and research mean that AG cannot yet be considered viable. More than 30 years of sporadic activity in AG research has not elucidated the fundamental operating parameters for a countermeasure."

"Continuous AG Continuous AG may also have drawbacks. We do not know how well the central nervous system can adapt to the constantly varying sensory stimuli introduced by this type of rotating AG. Coriolis forces created by rotation give the illusion of angular motion (usually roll or pitch) whenever the head is moved outside the plane of rotation. In many subjects, this movement causes severe nausea and vomiting. Whether the effects would be eliminated over time as the subject adapts to AG is unknown. Additionally, long-term exposure to continuous rotating AG may alter how a subject readapts to Mars or Earth gravity or to microgravity.""NASARM-2003-2 10785 " NASA " Guidelines and Capabilities for Designing Human Missions."

"Protecting astronauts from GCR " galactic cosmic radiation in deep space will be as easy as protecting astronauts in LEO operations, e.g., ISS " International Space Station, which is really only affected by trapped radiation.

"Providing adequate radiation protection for crews on long-duration missions outside of Earth"s protective magnetic field is a major challenge to NASA, one for which no effective and affordable solution has been found.""NASARM-2003-2 10785 " NASA " Guidelines and Capabilities for Designing Human Missions."

These space junkie thoughts are delusional and ignore reality; they need a reality check. Mankind is nowhere near being able to do any of the things mentioned above, many of which may never be possible, e.g., terraforming and mining in space, manned missions to Europa.

End of Part I

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Do some science fiction enthusiasts have unrealistic concepts of space travel and exploration as a result of science fiction? Sure. The public as whole, however, has no such optimism and seems wants to continue doing something, but with no rush. http://www.spacepolitics.com...

You seem to be arguing that having a small percentage of the population too optimistic is a good reason for supposing that all space activity is impractical. Not so. The current commercial uses of space include communications, weather forecasting, mapping, and remote sensing. Those activities are all economically sound. Every one of them faced stories of how they were impossible fantasies of sci-fi addicts. What is practical and what is not does not depend upon anyone's gut feel. It's a job for spreadsheets. It any emerging technology there are high risks, so there will be failures and successes.

The next commercial space business, much to my surprise, is low earth orbit space tourism. I suppose government can stop it, but it now seems inevitable based on private funding.

Someone calculated that a mission to Mars could be privately funded based upon revenue from pay TV subscriptions to follow the missions. I suspect the risks are too great for that to happen, but it is nonetheless amazing.

I think the potential new mid-term payoffs from space are climate control and power generation. Both are questions of cost more than technical feasibility. Robotic exploration of the solar system now is practical, and the public seems willing to support it. Scientists get the science, and the public gets the pictures. That's fair.

BTW. I think the first "realistic" (not silly) space science fiction movie was "Forbidden Planet." It had quite an impact at the time. Sputnik and the Apollo Program piqued interest that hasn't been matched since.

At 8/17/2013 10:33:28 AM, RoyLatham wrote:Do some science fiction enthusiasts have unrealistic concepts of space travel and exploration as a result of science fiction? Sure. The public as whole, however, has no such optimism and seems wants to continue doing something, but with no rush. http://www.spacepolitics.com...

You seem to be arguing that having a small percentage of the population too optimistic is a good reason for supposing that all space activity is impractical. Not so. The current commercial uses of space include communications, weather forecasting, mapping, and remote sensing. Those activities are all economically sound. Every one of them faced stories of how they were impossible fantasies of sci-fi addicts. What is practical and what is not does not depend upon anyone's gut feel. It's a job for spreadsheets. It any emerging technology there are high risks, so there will be failures and successes.

The next commercial space business, much to my surprise, is low earth orbit space tourism. I suppose government can stop it, but it now seems inevitable based on private funding.

Someone calculated that a mission to Mars could be privately funded based upon revenue from pay TV subscriptions to follow the missions. I suspect the risks are too great for that to happen, but it is nonetheless amazing.

I think the potential new mid-term payoffs from space are climate control and power generation. Both are questions of cost more than technical feasibility. Robotic exploration of the solar system now is practical, and the public seems willing to support it. Scientists get the science, and the public gets the pictures. That's fair.

BTW. I think the first "realistic" (not silly) space science fiction movie was "Forbidden Planet." It had quite an impact at the time. Sputnik and the Apollo Program piqued interest that hasn't been matched since.

Sending unmanned spacecraft into low earth orbits is relatively cheap and no human lives are at risk and it relatively easy.

Commercial firms that need satellites will spend millions because they expect a higher ROI " Return on Investment.

"The Cost of Building and Launching a Satellite"Satellites are not cheap business. They cost a lot of money to design, construct, launch and monitor. Just how much money? If you have at least $290 million in your bank account, that money can go into making a satellite that can track and monitor hurricanes. Add about $100 million dollars more if you want a satellite that carries a missile-warning device.

What makes satellites so expensive?Some of the factors that drive the cost of satellites are the equipment and materials used to build them. Transponders alone hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to maintain, while bandwidth cost per MHz is priced at a minimum of about $3,500 a month. Running a satellite at a 36MHz bandwidth will cost over $1.5 million a year. There are also the other gadgets and equipment that have to be built into the satellite in order for it to perform its intended function. These can include computers, computer software and cameras.

Another factor that contributes to the expense associated with satellites is the cost of putting one into orbit. It is estimated that a single satellite launch can range in cost from a low of about $50 million to a high of about $400 million. Launching a space shuttle mission can easily cost $500 million dollars, although one mission is capable of carrying multiple satellites and send them into orbit.

Also to be considered in the cost of satellites is its maintenance. After getting one into orbit, it has to be monitored from a ground facility, which will require manpower. Satellites are also not impervious to damage or down times. Furthermore, if things don"t go too well during a launch, a multi-million endeavor can either end up in pieces or sustain damages that will cost more money to repair.

Much to my surprise is your assumption that space tourism will happen soon. Where did you read that BS? If you are believe that "Virgin Galactic" BS, I have ocean front property in the Arizona that I will sell cheap. Sir Richard Branson is a total nutcase.

What is the cost of the space shuttle and the cost to lunch one into a low earth orbit.

The space shuttle challenger cost about $1.7 billion. It cost about $450 million to lunch the space shuttle into low earth orbit. I think the space shuttle can carry 7 people. That would be about $307 million per person (i.e., $1.7 Billion plus $450 million or $2.15 billion divided by 7). I doubt that many people are going pay $307 million for their next vacation into low earth orbit. Heck, let"s assume you can carry 100 passengers; then the cost per person is only 21.5 million per person. Or let"s assume that the shuttle can be reused about 50 times before retiring. So fifty lunches would cost $202.5 Billion and one shuttle would cost $1.7 Billion or a total cost of $204.2 Billion divided by 50 flights equals about $484 million per flight divided by 100 passengers is $4.8 million per person each flight. Where do I sign up for my first vacation flight?http://www.nasa.gov...

To escape earth"s orbit you need to reach a speed of about 25,000 mph. Astronauts experience about 3-Gs for about 10-15 minutes. They can receive much more than 3-Gs reentering earth. Very few humans would be able to do this.

Sputnik 1 was put in a low earth orbit on October 4, 1957 about 359 miles above the earth. I am pretty sure that Russia did not care about the science fiction movie Forbidden Planet. But, it did start the space race. I pretty sure that nobody at NASA believed anything about the movie either and it had nothing to do with the Apollo program. The USA was just trying to beat the Russians and land the first man on the Moon.

What are you talking about when you say the new mid-term payoffs from space are climate control and power generation? What cool-aid were you drinking when you thought of that.

As for the public being willing to support it, again what in the world are you talking about.

We can no more control earth"s climate from space than we can send a manned spaceship to the nearest galaxy. I can"t wait to hear what you are talking about as regards generating power from space. Again, you have watched too many science fiction movies like "The Forbidden Planet."

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

At 8/17/2013 6:48:29 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:Sending unmanned spacecraft into low earth orbits is relatively cheap and no human lives are at risk and it relatively easy.

Most of the valuable applications are in high earth orbit, but there are some in low earth orbit. So what?

Commercial firms that need satellites will spend millions because they expect a higher ROI " Return on Investment.

"The Cost of Building and Launching a Satellite"Satellites are not cheap business. They cost a lot of money to design, construct, launch and monitor. Just how much money? If you have at least $290 million in your bank account, that money can go into making a satellite that can track and monitor hurricanes. Add about $100 million dollars more if you want a satellite that carries a missile-warning device.

So what? Are you arguing that the applications I cited are not worth their cost?

Much to my surprise is your assumption that space tourism will happen soon. Where did you read that BS? If you are believe that "Virgin Galactic" BS, I have ocean front property in the Arizona that I will sell cheap. Sir Richard Branson is a total nutcase.

So, will you oppose the debate resolution: "Space tourism is likely to begin as a business within ten years?" You understand I said low earth orbit, which is what Branson and other are talking about.

What is the cost of the space shuttle and the cost to lunch one into a low earth orbit.

No one is talking about using anything like the space shuttle.

To escape earth"s orbit you need to reach a speed of about 25,000 mph. Astronauts experience about 3-Gs for about 10-15 minutes. They can receive much more than 3-Gs reentering earth. Very few humans would be able to do this.

The space tourism under discussion is suborbital, and uses long slow acceleration.

Sputnik 1 was put in a low earth orbit on October 4, 1957 about 359 miles above the earth. I am pretty sure that Russia did not care about the science fiction movie Forbidden Planet. But, it did start the space race. I pretty sure that nobody at NASA believed anything about the movie either and it had nothing to do with the Apollo program. The USA was just trying to beat the Russians and land the first man on the Moon.

I simply gave you the information about an earlier realistic movie. It probably helped get public approval for space missions.

What are you talking about when you say the new mid-term payoffs from space are climate control and power generation? What cool-aid were you drinking when you thought of that.

Excellent! You must know a lot about the subject. So will you oppose the resolution: "There are reasonable prospects for mid-term power generation in space."? The mid-term future is about 30 years.

I can"t wait to hear what you are talking about as regards generating power from space. Again, you have watched too many science fiction movies like "The Forbidden Planet."

Before we get much further along, I do not debate anyone about anything at DDO; I did debate in college where the debates were moderated and judged by PhDs. Please read my Forum "Confirmation Bias Cannot be Beaten!" at this link, which explains confirmation bias and in-group bias and why I don't debate at DDO:

1. Too many people are not dealing with reality about space travel, including commercial ventures involving sub-orbital spaceflights; most of these people don't get it that man will never travel in space like in the science fiction movies, e.g., Star Trek, The Angry Red Planet, etc.

2. Space exploration is important.

3. People will be killed exploring space because space is a very dangerous place; however, this should not stop the manned exploration of space.

4. Space exploration is very expensive and beyond the means of most private investors; however, if private investors can raise the billions of dollars needed, they should be allowed to try.

5. There are many technical difficulties that have not been solved yet by anyone, including NASA, e.g., artificial gravity, protecting humans against deep space radiation, rockets capable of manned missions to Mars, how to transport sufficient food, water, and supplies for a crew of three for a round-trip flight to Mars, how to orbit a manned rocket ship around Mars, etc. NASA currently has no idea of when or if these technical difficulties can be solved. That being said, it does not mean everyone should stop trying.

6. Space tourism sounds good on paper and gets lots of hype, but there are many technical difficulties that have not been solved, and it is very expensive. For example, the private citizens that have gone to the ISS - International Space Station have paid from $20 to $40 million each. How does that compare to the most expensive commercial jet plane ride? The average round trip price for a transatlantic flight on the supersonic Concord was $12,000. The Concord could go as high as 60,000 feet, with a top speed of 1.6 Mach or 1,218 mph. The total cost of the Concord program was about $2.6 billion in 2013 dollars. The cost of one Concord plane was $190 million in 2013 dollars.

7. A sub-orbital spaceflight is defined as is a spaceflight in which the spacecraft reaches space, but its trajectory intersects the atmosphere or surface of the gravitating body from which it was launched, so that it does not complete one orbital revolution. For example, the path of an object launched from Earth that reaches 100 km (62 mi) above sea level, and then falls back to Earth, is considered a sub-orbital spaceflight. Some sub-orbital flights have been undertaken to test spacecraft and launch vehicles later intended for orbital spaceflight. Other vehicles are specifically designed only for sub-orbital flight; examples include manned vehicles such as the X-15 and SpaceShipOne, and unmanned ones such as ICBMs and sounding rockets.http://en.wikipedia.org...

8. Sub-orbital space flights do require less speed to achieve a given altitude or sub-orbit, which is a much higher speed than most people think, e.g., 62 miles above earth, a speed of 2,123 mph is required, 124 miles above earth requires a speed of 3,691 mph, and 249 miles above earth requires a speed of 5,592 mph. SpaceShipOne, on flight 17P, which lasted 30 minutes, did reach 69.591 miles above earth at a speed of Mach 3.09 or 2,352 mph. The peak deceleration of that flight was 5.4 g, which will pose health risks for most civilian passengers.

SpaceShipOne is taken to an altitude of about 50,000 feet by a high flying lunch airplane called White Knight and then released. SpaceShipOne then freefalls for a few seconds and the pilot fires its hybrid rocket motor for 80 seconds propelling it into space to an altitude of 62.5 miles for about three minutes, and then it glides back to earth and lands about an hour after it took off in Mojave Desert airstrip. This is very similar to how the X-15 flew from 1959 to 1968, over 50 years ago. The SpaceShipOne and X-15 are rocket planes. The X-15 was taken up to about 45,000 feet by a B-52 carrier aircraft. The X-15 glided to its landing on a desert runway at 200 mph.

What I can't find about the SpaceShipOne spaceplane and the White Knight carrier-launch aircraft are any exact figures on the total cost. The White Knight appears to have cost $30 million. And, it cost about $80,000 per flight to fly the White Knight. The cost of SpaceShipOne is $28 million. So we are up to $58 million; they did win a $10 million dollar prize. I can't find any figures on how much the rocket fuel cost for the SpaceShipOne spaceplane. Apparently the fuel is a trade secret.

Then came SpaceShipTwo that had a 2007 estimate cost of $108 Million, which is now around $400 million. However, the price for a seat is now up to $250,000 per person; it was $200,000 per person. For both SpaceShipOne and SpaceShipTwo, and White Knight I and II, we are now at a total cost of about one-half $ billion on hardware alone.

Only one problem, they have no idea when the first commercial flight will be; and they do not have an FAA license yet for commercial flights.

On May 14, 2013, Richard Branson stated on Virgin Radio Dubai's Kris Fade Morning Show that he would be aboard the first public flight of SpaceShipTwo, which is scheduled for December 25, 2013.http://en.wikipedia.org...

"So, for the last eight years, nearly 600 people, let's call them the early adopters, have put down between $20,000 and $200,000 for their trip into space. Some people have actually been waiting eight years for said flight. And some of those folks have become rather impatient. But, that"s a story for another day."

Virgin Galactic's successful powered test flight of the SpaceShipTwo rocket plane takes the company closer to the completion of its test program, and to final licensing by the Federal Aviation Administration.

"Achieving powered flight for SpaceShipTwo was a critical step in VirginGalactic"s final testing and a major milestone for the company," said Christine Anderson, executive director of the New Mexico Spaceport Authority.

"Today's successful powered flight means we are getting closer to the day when the first Virgin Galactic passenger flight will be taking place from Spaceport America in New Mexico," she added. This was on April 29, 2013.

Did you note above, they don't have an FAA commercial passenger license yet? They have an FAA experimental permit issued on May 23, 2012 for test flights by test pilots, not passengers. No date for the start of Virgin Galactic's commercial spaceflights has been set yet.http://www.reuters.com...

My point in mentioning this is not to diminish the accomplishments of this private endeavor. But, so far Richard Branson has accomplished nothing more than was done by NASA in 1960 with the X-15 program, over 53 years ago.

It is just more hype by Richard Branson with no commercial flights yet.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Are you sure you are refusing to debate because DDO is too biased? You called me "retarded" in the other forum thread. I guess you think that those academic PhDs would let you get away with that, while the poor biased people on DDO wouldn't. When I challenged your credentials, you dropped the thread. In debates you are required to justify your beliefs. It's a whole lot easier to spout opinions than to back them up.

One of the fundamental features of debate is having a resolution. That's an affirmative statement you defend. You mostly have a list of trivia, with a few thinly-related opinions thrown in.

You say there are "too many" people with a superficial sci-fi view of space exploration. Okay, too many for what? The poll data shows they have little influence on public policy. So what is the harm done? I think it's good to have a segment that's too optimistic to a least partially offset the people who are firmly on the side of "if man was meant to fly, he would have been born with wings."

In low earth orbit most of the energy goes to getting up to the 17,000 mph speed to maintain orbit. I recall it's only about 10% of the fuel that goes to overcoming gravity. Also, it takes a lot of fuel to get rid of all that speed for re-entry, with expensive heat shielding needed to dissipate the rest of the energy. Moreover, the method of carrying the rocket to the edge of space with an airplane is proven and efficient. All that make suborbital flight dramatically cheaper than orbital flight.

Most of what the space tourism people are doing has been done before. When something is a business, innovation is for the purpose of either expanding the client base or saving money.

To make space tourism a business, all that is required is that enough people pay the high price to make it viable. All the arguments you apply to space tourism can be paralleled with arguments "proving" that there cannot be a business in selling luxury yachts: the have huge initial costs, huge fuel and operating costs, and so forth. Yet, there has been a business for a long time. First sales go to rich early adopters, then competition drives the prices down.

Once a business is established, costs are likely to fall with advancing technology. The latest model of Boeing 747 costs about $350 million dollars. Can we conclude from that astounding cost that no ordinary person can afford to travel on such a vehicle? In fact, the economics work.

You argue that Branson et al do not yet have a commercial passenger license, and that's supposed to prove something. It's like arguing the Wright Brothers could not succeed in flight because the government had not issued an airworthiness certificate. The problem is making the vehicle work. If it works, Branson will get a certificate. If it doesn't work, he won't. I suspect it will start with acknowledged risk; that's the deal for activities like sky diving and hang gliding.

SpaceX has a commercial contract for 12 cargo deliveries to the ISS, and they have successfully completed two of the missions. Orbital Sciences has a contract for eight missions with the first scheduled for the middle of next month. (Four companies are competing for the crew launch contract.) These are expensive low earth orbit missions, with the contract costing about $150 million each. However, the Space Shuttle missions cost $1.5 billion each.

At 8/18/2013 11:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:Are you sure you are refusing to debate because DDO is too biased? You called me "retarded" in the other forum thread. I guess you think that those academic PhDs would let you get away with that, while the poor biased people on DDO wouldn't. When I challenged your credentials, you dropped the thread. In debates you are required to justify your beliefs. It's a whole lot easier to spout opinions than to back them up.

One of the fundamental features of debate is having a resolution. That's an affirmative statement you defend. You mostly have a list of trivia, with a few thinly-related opinions thrown in.

You say there are "too many" people with a superficial sci-fi view of space exploration. Okay, too many for what? The poll data shows they have little influence on public policy. So what is the harm done? I think it's good to have a segment that's too optimistic to a least partially offset the people who are firmly on the side of "if man was meant to fly, he would have been born with wings."

In low earth orbit most of the energy goes to getting up to the 17,000 mph speed to maintain orbit. I recall it's only about 10% of the fuel that goes to overcoming gravity. Also, it takes a lot of fuel to get rid of all that speed for re-entry, with expensive heat shielding needed to dissipate the rest of the energy. Moreover, the method of carrying the rocket to the edge of space with an airplane is proven and efficient. All that make suborbital flight dramatically cheaper than orbital flight.

Most of what the space tourism people are doing has been done before. When something is a business, innovation is for the purpose of either expanding the client base or saving money.

To make space tourism a business, all that is required is that enough people pay the high price to make it viable. All the arguments you apply to space tourism can be paralleled with arguments "proving" that there cannot be a business in selling luxury yachts: the have huge initial costs, huge fuel and operating costs, and so forth. Yet, there has been a business for a long time. First sales go to rich early adopters, then competition drives the prices down.

Once a business is established, costs are likely to fall with advancing technology. The latest model of Boeing 747 costs about $350 million dollars. Can we conclude from that astounding cost that no ordinary person can afford to travel on such a vehicle? In fact, the economics work.

You argue that Branson et al do not yet have a commercial passenger license, and that's supposed to prove something. It's like arguing the Wright Brothers could not succeed in flight because the government had not issued an airworthiness certificate. The problem is making the vehicle work. If it works, Branson will get a certificate. If it doesn't work, he won't. I suspect it will start with acknowledged risk; that's the deal for activities like sky diving and hang gliding.

SpaceX has a commercial contract for 12 cargo deliveries to the ISS, and they have successfully completed two of the missions. Orbital Sciences has a contract for eight missions with the first scheduled for the middle of next month. (Four companies are competing for the crew launch contract.) These are expensive low earth orbit missions, with the contract costing about $150 million each. However, the Space Shuttle missions cost $1.5 billion each.

Part I

Sorry if I called you retarded; but, what I really meant was delusional. I don't say that to offend you; but, to mean that you are not dealing with reality or the facts.

When did you challenge my credentials? I stated my reasons for not debating at DDO; it is irrelevant whether the PhDs would censored me for remarks made in bad taste. In college I never had to debate people that made outlandish statements. Again, you must not understand or believe the articles I cited about confirmation bias and in-group bias. Here is another.

"The 12 cognitive biases that prevent you from being rational"

"We love to agree with people who agree with us. It's why we only visit websites that express our political opinions, and why we mostly hang around people who hold similar views and tastes. We tend to be put off by individuals, groups, and news sources that make us feel uncomfortable or insecure about our views, what the behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner called cognitive dissonance. It's this preferential mode of behavior that leads to the confirmation bias, the often unconscious act of referencing only those perspectives that fuel our pre-existing views, while at the same time ignoring or dismissing opinions, no matter how valid, that threaten our world view. And paradoxically, the internet has only made this tendency even worse."http://io9.com...

I have supported everything I have said in these forums with evidence and cited the sources. Sorry you do not agree with my evidence.

Too many is too many. Probably, more than 80% of the population. Too many people live in a delusion about space travel and think it is just a matter of time before mankind will be flying on a real space ship like the Star Trek Enterprise; it will never happen.

Comparing the sale of yachts to a 10 minute sub-orbital flight is nonsense. Yes, there will always be very wealthy people who will pay for both.

The expected life of a Boeing 747 is over 25 years and it can carry about 416 passengers. Airlines have made huge profits flying that plane. The Boeing 747 has flown about 5.6 billion people; so, I guess a lot of people can afford to fly; none of those passengers have paid $200,000 for a round trip ticket to anywhere. So, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Around 600 people have paid up to $200,000 to be on a flight on the Virgin Galactic Two. I think it can hold 6 passengers in theory, but has never carried any real passengers, just the pilot. So, to carry 600 people in space, it would have to make 100 flights. Good luck with that.http://www.boeing.com...

How much money has SpaceX raised? It started with 100 million in seed money from Billionaire Elon Musk in 2006. In 2008, SpaceX raised an additional $20 million from Founders Fund; and in 2009 they received from $15 million to $60 million for Steve Jurvetson, through his investment firm DFJ. So, we are up to about $180 million. I think another article states that they now have $200 million. But, surely that can't be enough to fund space programs. So where are they getting the needed funding? They are getting the funding from NASA, $1.9 Billion.http://www.quora.com...http://techcrunch.com...

There is no way possible for a private company to raise the billions in capital needed for a space program. And, nonsense statements like it could be raised from TV subscriptions are just that, delusional nonsense. I think the most ever raised by a venture capital firm was about $1 Billion; but, it wasn't because of something silly like investing in private space programs; the investors that put up $1 Billion expected a huge financial return on that investment. No sane investors would put out a billion dollars on something that most likely will have a negative financial return, like space programs.http://www.quora.com...

On 25 May 2012, SpaceX " Space Exploration Technologies Corporation made history as the world's first privately held company to send a cargo payload, carried on the Dragon spacecraft, to the ISS - International Space Station.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

At 8/18/2013 11:22:30 PM, RoyLatham wrote:Are you sure you are refusing to debate because DDO is too biased? You called me "retarded" in the other forum thread. I guess you think that those academic PhDs would let you get away with that, while the poor biased people on DDO wouldn't. When I challenged your credentials, you dropped the thread. In debates you are required to justify your beliefs. It's a whole lot easier to spout opinions than to back them up.

One of the fundamental features of debate is having a resolution. That's an affirmative statement you defend. You mostly have a list of trivia, with a few thinly-related opinions thrown in.

You say there are "too many" people with a superficial sci-fi view of space exploration. Okay, too many for what? The poll data shows they have little influence on public policy. So what is the harm done? I think it's good to have a segment that's too optimistic to a least partially offset the people who are firmly on the side of "if man was meant to fly, he would have been born with wings."

In low earth orbit most of the energy goes to getting up to the 17,000 mph speed to maintain orbit. I recall it's only about 10% of the fuel that goes to overcoming gravity. Also, it takes a lot of fuel to get rid of all that speed for re-entry, with expensive heat shielding needed to dissipate the rest of the energy. Moreover, the method of carrying the rocket to the edge of space with an airplane is proven and efficient. All that make suborbital flight dramatically cheaper than orbital flight.

Most of what the space tourism people are doing has been done before. When something is a business, innovation is for the purpose of either expanding the client base or saving money.

To make space tourism a business, all that is required is that enough people pay the high price to make it viable. All the arguments you apply to space tourism can be paralleled with arguments "proving" that there cannot be a business in selling luxury yachts: the have huge initial costs, huge fuel and operating costs, and so forth. Yet, there has been a business for a long time. First sales go to rich early adopters, then competition drives the prices down.

Once a business is established, costs are likely to fall with advancing technology. The latest model of Boeing 747 costs about $350 million dollars. Can we conclude from that astounding cost that no ordinary person can afford to travel on such a vehicle? In fact, the economics work.

You argue that Branson et al do not yet have a commercial passenger license, and that's supposed to prove something. It's like arguing the Wright Brothers could not succeed in flight because the government had not issued an airworthiness certificate. The problem is making the vehicle work. If it works, Branson will get a certificate. If it doesn't work, he won't. I suspect it will start with acknowledged risk; that's the deal for activities like sky diving and hang gliding.

SpaceX has a commercial contract for 12 cargo deliveries to the ISS, and they have successfully completed two of the missions. Orbital Sciences has a contract for eight missions with the first scheduled for the middle of next month. (Four companies are competing for the crew launch contract.) These are expensive low earth orbit missions, with the contract costing about $150 million each. However, the Space Shuttle missions cost $1.5 billion each.

Part II

On 25 May 2012, SpaceX " Space Exploration Technologies Corporation made history as the world's first privately held company to send a cargo payload, carried on the Dragon spacecraft, to the ISS - International Space Station.

That was great; but, what is overlooked is that it was lunched by NASA, using mainly NASA personnel at NASA's KSC - John F. Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, FL. And, you are overlooking the fact that NASA is funding these missions at a cost of $1.9 Billion. And, these are just unmanned flights to the ISS.

"SpaceX is one of three companies along with Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp to receive funding in the latest round of awards from NASA's Commercial Crew Program. NASA hopes at least one privately developed American spaceship can begin flying astronauts to and from the International Space Station by 2017."http://www.space.com...

Why is NASA doing this, after all they shut down the space shuttle program? NASA is committed to keeping the ISS open for slightly more than a decade, until maybe 2025. What will SpaceX do then?

NASA is funding these SpaceX missions in part to help replace the space agency's shuttle program, which NASA retired in July 2011. The agency gave $1.9 billion to Virginia-based Orbital Science Corp. for eight cargo flights. That expenditure was part of the same program responsible for funding the SpaceX launch.http://www.space.com...

Russia wants to shut down the ISS by 2016 because it is pointless to keep it open and it cost too much. All that can be learned from a LEO space station has been learned. I do hope they can find a few people who will agree to stay up there for a few years to see if humans can last that long in space without seriously destroying their bodies and minds, e.g., bone loss, muscle loss, and other medical problems, and going insane from isolation and being stuck in a small space. Valeri Vladmirovich Polyakov stayed on the Mir space station for 437 days and 18 hours, which is the longest time anyone has spent in space continuously. He suffered muscle and bone loss, but he eventually recovered; but, Russia has released almost no actual medical data. Space Station astronauts are currently limited to 6-mongh stays.http://en.wikipedia.org...

But, that is not the whole picture about funding. SpaceX pays a small fee to NASA for the use of the KSC - John F. Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, FL.

No private company, like SpaceX could afford to build its own lunch facility like KSC for missions to the ISS. SpaceX gets free use of all of NASA's support staff and computer equipment, tracking systems, lunch pad, and on and on. They get the use of the whole lunch infrastructure for free. Without the funding that these private companies get from NASA and the almost free use of NASA's lunch facilities and NASA's support staff, they could never afford do it, which is why private commercialization of space is such a big joke and farce.

"A typical launch pad consists of the service and umbilical structures. The service structure provides an access platform to inspect the launch vehicle prior to launch. Most service structures can be moved or rotated to a safe distance. The umbilical structure has propellant loading, gas, power, and communication links to the launch vehicle. The launch vehicle sits atop the launch platform, which may contain a flame deflection structure to withstand the intense heat and forces generated by rocket engines during liftoff." These service and umbilical structures cost billions to build and hundreds of millions to maintain. Private companies, like SpaceX could never afford to build and maintain them.

Even if a private company could raise the capital to build and maintain its own lunch facility like KSC, why would it do that? The ISS " International Space Station will be shut down most likely by 2025. There is no money in it. Most likely, once the ISS is closed, SpaceX will go broke and file bankruptcy.

Anyway, the commercial exploration of space is a big joke on the public.

The exploration of space will have to be left to countries, mainly the big boys, USA, Russia, and China. It just cost too much for any private ventures. NASA will have to spent hundreds of billions before it can even attempt a manned Mars mission.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

You don't have the knowledge to go around calling people delusional. You consistently argue "x costs a lot, therefore x will never be feasible." To prove "x will never be feasible" you have to point to some law nature that cannot be overcome. The SpaceX vs shuttle example shows costs reduced by a factor of ten, and for a very long time there was no competition in the industry.

All the arguments you make against commercial space ventures could have been made against commercial aircraft. The early development of the industry depended critically on the government, with World War I being the driving force. So why would there be any use for commercial aviation after the War was over? They are too expensive and dangerous to use as transportation. They are too small to carry passengers economically. Hence we should conclude that commercial air will never be viable.

Building a launch facility is not particularly expensive in the scheme of things. The privately funded "spaceport" facility in Mojave is already certified by the government. A new launch facility in Kodiak, Alaska, was funded by the government to support ABM tests. It didn't cost a lot.

Boeing wanted to compete for the space shuttle follow-on by using a floating launch platform. Fuel costs are lower if the launch is near the equator. So Boeing was going to base in Hawaii and float the launch platform to the equator. The government has traditionally suppressed private launch facilities, but now that the government seems to be exiting the space business, they are likely to let others get into it.

I listed the current commercially profitable areas of the space industry. Communications satellites are the centerpiece, but mapping, weather forecasting, and remote sensing are others. So if nothing else, SpaceX can move into selling launch facilities for those unmanned applications. The first two SpaceX missions were unmanned, so they must be comfortable with that.

The space solar power concept has been around since the 1960's. The idea is to generate solar power in orbit and beam the energy down on microwaves. The receiving antenna on the ground is a couple of kilometers in diameter, so the energy density is too low to fry any birds that happen through. The advantages of space solar is that the energy flux is twice what it is on the surface, it operates 24/7, it is immune to weather, the power can beamed to nearly anywhere on earth, a large structure needs no support, it is inexhaustible, it is completely non-polluting, and it generates no CO2. So much work has been done on components that there is no much technical risk. The problem is the cost of getting the material into synchronous orbit.

There is book, "Solar Power Satellites" by Flournoy that summarizes the status of the technology, including the legal and cost issues. the book gives references to the technical literature. According to Prof Flournoy, the costs of space solar are currently about twice that of fossil fuels for countries that have to import energy. China, India, and Japan are the most interested in space solar, because they anticipate the greatest problems with fuels costs.

"Japan plans to build a space-based solar farm, capable of generating 1GW of green power. The project will be developed by Mitsubishi Electric Corp., a manufacturer of solar panels which will join an AUD $25 billion [about equal to US dollars] Japanese project to construct the gigantic solar farm in space within three decades. ... The a 1-gigawatt solar farm will have four square kilometer array of solar panels stationed 36,000km above the surface of earth. One gigawatt of generation capacity could power about 294,000 average Tokyo homes. ... A small demonstration satellite consisting of solar panels will be launched in 2015 by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), leaders of the project.http://www.greenoptimistic.com...

Lowering launch costs is one possible way to achieve parity with fossil fuels. Another possibility is to develop space-tolerant thin film solar cells to lower the weight. Eventually, fossil fuels costs will rise as supplies are exhausted.

This is a likely post-ISS commercial use of space. I don't know if there would be humans needed in space for the construction. I don't think it matters for the economics.

Here is copy of the interchange from the other thread. http://www.debate.org... GWL-CPA now claims I am delusional rather than retarded.

At 8/16/2013 8:04:24 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:Wow, how retarded.

Retarded? I got my degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from M.I.T. Where did you get yours?

How do we get the equipment up to the moon to did and build an underground city? It took 31 trips to build the ISS - International Space Station over a ten year period; and, we did not have to send millions of tons of digging equipment up there to do that.

The cost estimates are around $20 billion. It's not an underground city. It's a capsule habitation for something like a dozen people. It's certainly expensive, but unlike many space projects there is an economic return from the fuel obtained.

You folks are watching too much science fiction.NASA is no where near colonizing the moon or mining anything.

That's a political decision, not a problem of technology. There are lots of things that government spends money on. The US current spends $74 billion per year on food stamps, for example. If the people do not want to fund space, then so be it. But it's not a problem with the technology being unavailable.

Space exploration and space technology will continue without government participation under the profit motive. The commercial business is in getting payloads into synchronous orbit. Space refueling lowers the cost of going from low earth orbit to synchronous orbit, so there is potential profit in the project. Also, it takes a low of fuel to get the space shuttle or it's successors down from low earth orbit. Now all the fuel for the return has to be carried up there. If fuel were available in space, the shuttle could carry a lot more payload up into orbit rather than carrying the return fuel.

In the long run, we'll be better off getting government out of the business.

I had six questions, which they answered. But, most of the answers revolve around these two questions.

Because of science fiction, many people actually believe we are close to achieving deep space travel and terraforming of Mars. My questions are as follows:

1. Can were overcome the negative effects of not having gravity for prolonged periods of time. Valeri Polyakov experience negative effects after only 438 days. A round trip to Mars could take 2 years or more, if we stayed on Mars for a few weeks. A trip to our nearest star Alpha Centauri, would take 165,000 years at the speed of the space shuttle. Obviously, that will most likely never happen.http://earthsky.org...

NASA acknowledge that this is still a problem that they have not solved.

"Our efforts have demonstrated that intensive resistive exercise, possibly in combination with medications originally intended to combat osteoporosis in post-menopausal women, may be very close to preventing the loss of bone mass that has been observed in previous long spaceflight. Current research is investigating whether the architecture, or internal structure, of the bones is protected as well as their overall mass."

"Other research is providing countermeasures or treatments for the muscle function, aerobic capacity, cardiovascular function, neurosensory (vestibular) and sensory-motor capabilities that appear to be lost with long periods in weightlessness. We intend to use the remainder of our time aboard the ISS to confirm that these treatments are effective and, essentially, to certify them for use on future space exploration missions, such as expeditions to Mars."

"In addition to working on these point-solutions to the problem of weightlessness, NASA is also considering whether, and how, to provide artificial gravity through centrifugal acceleration, by rotating all or only part of a future (as not yet designed) deep space vehicle. This is a common technique applied in most science fiction movies, but has not yet made the transition to practicality in the real world. We plan to convene a working group of scientists and engineers later this year to propose some specific boundary conditions for such work. If artificial gravity is eventually determined to be practical, then it would ameliorate many (but not all) of the biomedical problems of long-duration deep space missions."

That sounds encouraging, but, there are many unknowns at this time. I love NASA use of the maybe words like "may be very close to."

That actually means, at this time NASA does not have the answers.

Most medications for osteoporosis, which is a progressive disease, do slow down bone loss and help prevent broken bones and some increase bone thickness, but this occurs in old people. It is very unclear what giving these medications to young healthy bodies will accomplish, if anything.

"Osteoporosis is a progressive disease that causes bones to become thin and brittle, making them more likely to break. Both women and men are more likely to have osteoporosis if they fail to reach their optimum bone mineral density during the childhood and teenage years, critical times for building bones. Osteoporosis is related to the loss of bone mass that occurs as part of the natural process of aging. Although osteoporosis can occur in men, it is most common in women who have gone through menopause."http://www.webmd.com...

NASA did not directly answer how the other medical issues that occur during long periods of weightlessness will be solved; they just said,

"Other research is providing countermeasures or treatments for the muscle function, aerobic capacity, cardiovascular function, neurosensory (vestibular) and sensory-motor capabilities that appear to be lost with long periods in weightlessness."http://www.jhu.edu...

Basically, at this time, NSAS has no solutions, but is currently researching the issues.

I am glad to see that NASA apparently intends to have some astronauts stay at the ISS longer than 438 days to test and certify the new medications or whatever they plan to test that will ensure that all the medical issues caused by prolonged periods of weightlessness are solved.

Certifying is important, because if NASA can't certified that men being sent into space for long periods of time can be protected against the prolonged negative medical effects of prolonged weightlessness, NASA will not send men into space for long periods of time. In NASA's safety manuals, the safety of the public is #1 and astronauts #2. NASA will do everything possible to protect the astronauts before they allow a manned flight into deep space, e.g., Mars.

NASA did confirm that they currently do not know how to created artificial gravity, just theories based on science fiction movies; and they confirmed that they have no spaceship capable of manned deep space flight.

"NASA is also considering whether, and how, to provide artificial gravity through centrifugal acceleration, by rotating all or only part of a future (as not yet designed) deep space vehicle. This is a common technique applied in most science fiction movies, but has not yet made the transition to practicality in the real world. We plan to convene a working a working group of scientists and engineers later this year to propose some specific boundary conditions for such work. If artificial gravity is eventually determined to be practical, then it would ameliorate many (but not all) of the biomedical problems of long-duration deep space missions. "

There are many problems with providing gravity through rotation of a space ship or space station. It has to do with the pressure differences between your head and your feet, which would result in blood accumulating at your feet and making you feel light headed. I am not sure why NASA did not mention those problems in their letter. But, they did admit that they don"t know how to make a space ship or space station rotate 24-7 at the required speed. Firing rockets attached to the spaceship or space station most likely would not work because it would throw the space ship or space station out or orbit, and possibly make it spin or tumble in space uncontrollably. So, it would somehow have to be motors inside the spaceship or space station which would cause the part of the space ship or space station where the crew lives to rotate at the required speed. This would most likely be electrical motors and require lots of power 24-7, which is currently not possible. But, how would the crew get to the other compartments in the spaceship or space station that are not rotating? Would they need to shut it off each time? It is not clear how you could have a perfect seal between the rotating part and the non-rotating part. There are so many technical issues with this whole idea of creating artificial gravity through centrifugal acceleration, it is no wonder why NASA has not been able to do it.http://www.abc.net.au...

Since Russia wanted to close the ISS " International Space Station by 2016 and let its orbit decay causing it to fall back to earth like the Mir Space Station; it is not clear how much longer the ISS will survive. It appears that NASA is looking at keeping it open through 2025.

There are no plans to try to make the ISS a rotating space station for two primary reasons: They don't know how to do that and they don't have the money or funding to try.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

NASA also stated the following; but it appears to only work on small communication satellites.

"Another possible solution to the problem of exposure to extended weightlessness would be to shorten the time it takes to travel between planets. I don"t mean to imply to possibility of "warp drive" or any other sort of far-fetched propulsion capabilities, but there are already low-thrust engines already in use on communications satellites which serve as examples of engines that could accelerate a spacecraft slowly but continuously and thus could shorten Mars missions from 2 " years to only 9-12 months total round-trip duration. This answers your questions 2, 3 and 6: it is not necessary to have high acceleration to reach high speeds. Low but continuous acceleration will accomplish the same thing with less propellant, risk, and drama. Mars mission velocities using "old-fashion" chemical propellant technologies would not require appreciably great accelerations."

That is great, but they have only used this on small communication satellites that required small amounts of chemical propellants. The heaviest unmanned vehicle to Mars weighed about 12,000 lbs. The Apollo spaceship that landed a man on the moon weighed over 100,000 pounds with a crew of three. I doubt that NASA knows how they will carry enough fuel, food, water, and supplies on a manned spaceship to Mars with a crew of three.

Here was my second question to NASA:

2. Space radiation appears to be a huge problem. How will man overcome that to even get to Mars and stay on Mars?

NASA response to this question did confirm what I already knew. Their response was again more maybe and speculation.

"You are correct that space radiation is currently a large problem. The faster travel times using new propulsion technologies described above would shorten the exposure to such radiation. New propulsion capabilities might also permit carrying more shielding against the radiation."

Again, this is just speculation because it has never been tried on a large spaceship weighing over 100,000 lbs. like the Apollo spacecraft; not to mention the fact, the much more water, food, and supplies will need to be carried on the manned Mars spacecraft, which as I mention before, NASA has no idea how that will be accomplished.

NASA's letter went on to say:

"Space suites are currently in design for Mars missions, but like a Mars spaceship, have not yet been developed. This is for a very simple reason: NASA has not been authorized to send an astronaut to Mars by Congress, and thus NASA cannot spend taxpayer dollars to develop unique technologies for those missions. NASA has been authorized to do the research and studies I have described, but going to the next level and building large numbers of next-generation vehicles in not currently permitted. When the government authorizes NASA to do so and provides the necessary funding, then you should expect to see the necessary rockets, spaceships and spacesuits that don"t yet exist."

I don't see a solution to the funding problems anytime soon.

Space travel is very expensive and will cost trillions more.

I wish the USA, Russia, and China could combine their funds and agree to spend a trillion dollars over the next few years. But, most likely that will not happen.

Given the current economic recession in the USA, which might lead to another depression, it is doubtful that much money will be given to NASA.

Some folks actually believe that Commercial space flights and research are the answer; but that overlooks the fact that no commercial firms could begin to fund deep space travel. Despite the claims that there could be profit in it, e.g., mining the moon, building a moon vacation resort underground. These claims are just plain silly and not thought out properly.

Mining the moon would cost more than any commercial private business could ever raise in Capital. And, no one knows exactly where they would have to mine or how deep they would have to dig/drill. No one knows for sure if there is even anything to mine on the moon in the quantities needed to make it profitable. The technical issues with even trying this are huge; and are currently beyond existing technology.

The following information is from an article:

"Mining The Moon"

Even the idea that helium-3 could be mined from the moon based on soil samples is delusional. Helium-3 is worth about $40,000 per ounce, so if you could mine 220 pounds that would be worth about $141 million. Sounds good, but the concentration of helium-3 in the lunar soil is extremely low. Estimates indicate that it would be necessary to process large amounts of rock and soil. It is estimated that it would take a digging patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 feet to of lunar soil to yield 220 pounds of helium-3. An area three-quarters of a square mile and 9 feet deep is 5,227,220 cubic yards. A yard of cubic dirt weights from 75 to 100 lbs. So on the low side, 5,227,220 cubic yards of lunar soil would weigh about 392,040,000 lbs., assuming lunar soil weighed only 75 lbs. per cubic yard.

Calculations: There are 1,760 yards to a mile, and 1,320 yards in three-fourths of a mile. There are 1,742,400 square miles in a three-fourth of a square mile area (i.e., multiple 1,320 by 1,320). Nine feet deep is 3 yards. So, three-fourth of a square mile area dug to 3 yards deep is 5,227,200 cubic yards, multiplied by 75 lbs. per cubic yard and you have 392,040,000 lbs.

There is no way to move 392 million lbs. of lunar soil from the moon back to earth for processing; and currently no way to process it on the moon. The article on this nonsense overlooked the cost and make wild unsupportable statements.

I remember in 1968, while a sophomore in college, watching Star Trek - Starship USS Enterprise, with Captain Kirk, i.e., William Shatner. It was a favorite at the student center.

The Star Trek TV series began in 1966. Who has forgotten these famous words?

"Space: The final frontier, These are the voyages of the Starship, Enterprise, Its 5 year mission, To explore strange new worlds, To seek out new life and new civilizations, To boldly go where no man has gone before."

But, most people watching Star Trek at that time understood that Star Trek was science fiction and that man would never be able to do anything like what happened in that series, e.g., speed of light travel, e.g., warp factor 10 (i.e., infinite velocity),

Most of the science fiction movies created before 1966 were somewhat lame; and no one really took them seriously, e.g., Abbott and Costello Go to Mars (1953). There was one earlier science fiction movie that many believed was true, "The Angry Red Planet" (1959).

Yes, most of the movies are lame. But the books, not so much. Try reading a stranger in a strange land.

Man has always been fascinated with life on Mars, which has never been proven, and UFOs, which also have never been proven.

Then came 2001: A Space Odyssey ( 1968), Silent Running (1972), Logan"s Run (1976) then Star Wars in 1977, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Alien (1979), Aliens (1986), etc.

Because of these movies and series like Star Trek, too many people became detached from reality.

Detached from reality, or attached to fantasy?

The movie "Silent Running" planted the seed that greenhouses and growing plants for food in space was easy; and the movies like "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and "Aliens" created the idea that terraforming planets was as easy preparing "Shake N Bake" food, i.e., "Shake N Bake" colonies. "Total Recall" was another movie where terraforming Mars and creating huge mining operations were possible. Somehow, apparently magically, in all these spaceships and colonies, artificial gravity, water, and breathable air were created.

Do you understand the concept if fiction? I think it's you that's having problems with your grip on reality. Those are movies, they aren't supposed to be realistic. You might as well get pissed at superman for making people think laser vision is possible.

All these were great science fiction movies, but you were never supposed to lose touch with reality.

I thought that was the entire point of fictional literature and movies?

However, the mindset of many people was beginning to change, to switch from reality based thinking to science-fiction based thinking. Instead of understanding that these movies were only science fiction, many people became detached from reality and began thinking that it was only a matter of time before man could do the same things. A totally delusional thinking about space travel emerged, which permeates the youth today.

Optimism, my friend, is a key point of science. How could anything from those films come to reality, if no one ever believed they could?

This delusional thinking completely ignores the physical realities of space and space travel.

I can just imagine you as one of the guys who would have told the wright brothers that they could never fly. I challenge you to provide me with an example of one thing from the movies you have already listed, that is impossible according to modern physics.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

This delusional thinking has created a bunch of space junkies that believe:

"Sending manned spacecraft to Mars, Jupiter and beyond is just a tad more difficult than landing men on the moon.

"Colonizing moons and planets, e.g., the Earth"s moon, Mars, Europa, etc. is just slightly more difficult than building the ISS " International Space Station, which is only 220 miles from earth and took over 12 year and 31 space missions to complete at a cost of $150 Billion, which makes it the most expensive object ever created by man. And, this does not include the hundreds of Billions that were spent by Russia. And, the 150 Billion, if adjusted to 2013 dollars and including what was spent by Russia, would most likely be closer to a trillion dollars.

"Terraforming planets is as easy as it was in the science fiction movies "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" "Aliens," and "Total Recall."

"Growing all the food that is needed to survive on long space flights can be grown on the spaceships or on the planets once we get there. NSAS has not been able to grow anything edible on the ISS, not even for one meal, not even a carrot. NASA hasn"t even grown a sprig of mint at the space station in 12 years. From seeding to maturity, mint takes about 90 days. Carrots take from 60 to 75 days.

"Creating breathable air and drinkable water on spaceships on long spaceflights (e.g., trip to Mars) or on space colonies will be as easy as it is on the ISS.

"Creating artificial gravity is like making coffee, despite the fact that NASA has not been able to do that in over 30 years, and has no idea how to actually do it (i.e., what equipment would be needed), just theories.

"The concept of creating artificial gravity (AG) was first popularized by Wernher von Braun, Arthur C. Clarke, and others many years ago. Stanley Kubrick"s 1968 movie "2001 : A Space Odyssey" brought this concept to the forefront of public interest, although gaps in fundamental knowledge and research mean that AG cannot yet be considered viable. More than 30 years of sporadic activity in AG research has not elucidated the fundamental operating parameters for a countermeasure."

"Continuous AG Continuous AG may also have drawbacks. We do not know how well the central nervous system can adapt to the constantly varying sensory stimuli introduced by this type of rotating AG. Coriolis forces created by rotation give the illusion of angular motion (usually roll or pitch) whenever the head is moved outside the plane of rotation. In many subjects, this movement causes severe nausea and vomiting. Whether the effects would be eliminated over time as the subject adapts to AG is unknown. Additionally, long-term exposure to continuous rotating AG may alter how a subject readapts to Mars or Earth gravity or to microgravity.""NASARM-2003-2 10785 " NASA " Guidelines and Capabilities for Designing Human Missions."

"Protecting astronauts from GCR " galactic cosmic radiation in deep space will be as easy as protecting astronauts in LEO operations, e.g., ISS " International Space Station, which is really only affected by trapped radiation.

"Providing adequate radiation protection for crews on long-duration missions outside of Earth"s protective magnetic field is a major challenge to NASA, one for which no effective and affordable solution has been found.""NASARM-2003-2 10785 " NASA " Guidelines and Capabilities for Designing Human Missions."

These space junkie thoughts are delusional and ignore reality; they need a reality check. Mankind is nowhere near being able to do any of the things mentioned above, many of which may never be possible, e.g., terraforming and mining in space, manned missions to Europa.

I don't know a single person who believes the things you just listed. Sure, they may not be actively aware of the difficulties behind these advances, but I've never met a person who says this stuff is easy. I think you're attacking a strawman.

End of Part I

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

I remember in 1968, while a sophomore in college, watching Star Trek - Starship USS Enterprise, with Captain Kirk, i.e., William Shatner. It was a favorite at the student center.

The Star Trek TV series began in 1966. Who has forgotten these famous words?

"Space: The final frontier, These are the voyages of the Starship, Enterprise, Its 5 year mission, To explore strange new worlds, To seek out new life and new civilizations, To boldly go where no man has gone before."

But, most people watching Star Trek at that time understood that Star Trek was science fiction and that man would never be able to do anything like what happened in that series, e.g., speed of light travel, e.g., warp factor 10 (i.e., infinite velocity),

Most of the science fiction movies created before 1966 were somewhat lame; and no one really took them seriously, e.g., Abbott and Costello Go to Mars (1953). There was one earlier science fiction movie that many believed was true, "The Angry Red Planet" (1959).

Yes, most of the movies are lame. But the books, not so much. Try reading a stranger in a strange land.

Man has always been fascinated with life on Mars, which has never been proven, and UFOs, which also have never been proven.

Then came 2001: A Space Odyssey ( 1968), Silent Running (1972), Logan"s Run (1976) then Star Wars in 1977, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Alien (1979), Aliens (1986), etc.

Because of these movies and series like Star Trek, too many people became detached from reality.

Detached from reality, or attached to fantasy?

The movie "Silent Running" planted the seed that greenhouses and growing plants for food in space was easy; and the movies like "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and "Aliens" created the idea that terraforming planets was as easy preparing "Shake N Bake" food, i.e., "Shake N Bake" colonies. "Total Recall" was another movie where terraforming Mars and creating huge mining operations were possible. Somehow, apparently magically, in all these spaceships and colonies, artificial gravity, water, and breathable air were created.

Do you understand the concept if fiction? I think it's you that's having problems with your grip on reality. Those are movies, they aren't supposed to be realistic. You might as well get pissed at superman for making people think laser vision is possible.

All these were great science fiction movies, but you were never supposed to lose touch with reality.

I thought that was the entire point of fictional literature and movies?

However, the mindset of many people was beginning to change, to switch from reality based thinking to science-fiction based thinking. Instead of understanding that these movies were only science fiction, many people became detached from reality and began thinking that it was only a matter of time before man could do the same things. A totally delusional thinking about space travel emerged, which permeates the youth today.

Optimism, my friend, is a key point of science. How could anything from those films come to reality, if no one ever believed they could?

This delusional thinking completely ignores the physical realities of space and space travel.

I can just imagine you as one of the guys who would have told the wright brothers that they could never fly. I challenge you to provide me with an example of one thing from the movies you have already listed, that is impossible according to modern physics.

Comparing space travel to the Wright Brothers is somewhat of a joke. We still don't have quiet jets. Yes man saw birds fly and said, maybe we can fly too. Man has never seen any animal fly in space. Man just assumed we could do it. We have, but it is a very hostile environment and very expensive.

There are possibly things that may stop man from staying in space, which NASA has yet to solve, e.g., the very negative effects on the human body that occur after prolonged stays in space. Just maybe, man is stuck on earth because of these human limitations.

You are still not dealing with the reality of space travel.

I suggest you get in touch with NASA and get the publications I have mentioned.

As far as one thing that is not possible, are you kidding?

No object the size of a spaceship can reach the speed of light or even 15% the speed of light .

There are no worm-holes in space where a man could go from earth to distant galaxies, like in Stargate.

Terraforming a planet will never be possible; man can't even control the earth's atmosphere and has no idea or machinery or anything where they could.

Traveling to the nearest galaxy will never be possible, because it would take over 500,000 years, assuming we could build a really fast spaceship.

We have yet to create any Artificial gravity or grow one vegetable or fruit in space that could be eaten as a meal. NASA has nothing in the works to even try to created something that would create Artificial gravity; and NASA knows that growing vegetables and fruits for the crew to eat can't be done; that is why they have not tried to do it.

There, that should be enough to disprove your comments.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

I remember in 1968, while a sophomore in college, watching Star Trek - Starship USS Enterprise, with Captain Kirk, i.e., William Shatner. It was a favorite at the student center.

The Star Trek TV series began in 1966. Who has forgotten these famous words?

"Space: The final frontier, These are the voyages of the Starship, Enterprise, Its 5 year mission, To explore strange new worlds, To seek out new life and new civilizations, To boldly go where no man has gone before."

But, most people watching Star Trek at that time understood that Star Trek was science fiction and that man would never be able to do anything like what happened in that series, e.g., speed of light travel, e.g., warp factor 10 (i.e., infinite velocity),

Most of the science fiction movies created before 1966 were somewhat lame; and no one really took them seriously, e.g., Abbott and Costello Go to Mars (1953). There was one earlier science fiction movie that many believed was true, "The Angry Red Planet" (1959).

Yes, most of the movies are lame. But the books, not so much. Try reading a stranger in a strange land.

Man has always been fascinated with life on Mars, which has never been proven, and UFOs, which also have never been proven.

Then came 2001: A Space Odyssey ( 1968), Silent Running (1972), Logan"s Run (1976) then Star Wars in 1977, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Alien (1979), Aliens (1986), etc.

Because of these movies and series like Star Trek, too many people became detached from reality.

Detached from reality, or attached to fantasy?

The movie "Silent Running" planted the seed that greenhouses and growing plants for food in space was easy; and the movies like "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" and "Aliens" created the idea that terraforming planets was as easy preparing "Shake N Bake" food, i.e., "Shake N Bake" colonies. "Total Recall" was another movie where terraforming Mars and creating huge mining operations were possible. Somehow, apparently magically, in all these spaceships and colonies, artificial gravity, water, and breathable air were created.

Do you understand the concept if fiction? I think it's you that's having problems with your grip on reality. Those are movies, they aren't supposed to be realistic. You might as well get pissed at superman for making people think laser vision is possible.

All these were great science fiction movies, but you were never supposed to lose touch with reality.

I thought that was the entire point of fictional literature and movies?

However, the mindset of many people was beginning to change, to switch from reality based thinking to science-fiction based thinking. Instead of understanding that these movies were only science fiction, many people became detached from reality and began thinking that it was only a matter of time before man could do the same things. A totally delusional thinking about space travel emerged, which permeates the youth today.

Optimism, my friend, is a key point of science. How could anything from those films come to reality, if no one ever believed they could?

This delusional thinking completely ignores the physical realities of space and space travel.

I can just imagine you as one of the guys who would have told the wright brothers that they could never fly. I challenge you to provide me with an example of one thing from the movies you have already listed, that is impossible according to modern physics.

Comparing space travel to the Wright Brothers is somewhat of a joke. We still don't have quiet jets. Yes man saw birds fly and said, maybe we can fly too. Man has never seen any animal fly in space. Man just assumed we could do it. We have, but it is a very hostile environment and very expensive.

Man didnt assume we could do it. We understood that space travel was possible before we tried it. Are you stupid or something? We understood enough about space to understand that space travel was possible, decades before the first manned space mission.

There are possibly things that may stop man from staying in space, which NASA has yet to solve, e.g., the very negative effects on the human body that occur after prolonged stays in space. Just maybe, man is stuck on earth because of these human limitations.

Well, that is only true to an extent. Off hand there is only one problem that I know of, that doesn't have a foreseeable solution. That is the bone density problem. With a lack of gravitys effect on our bones, they become brittle.

You are still not dealing with the reality of space travel.

Which is what? That its still in its formative stages? I know that. Or are you actually so bold as to claim its a fools errand?

I suggest you get in touch with NASA and get the publications I have mentioned.

Which are?

As far as one thing that is not possible, are you kidding?

No object the size of a spaceship can reach the speed of light or even 15% the speed of light .

Currently, no they can't. Theoretically, yes they can.

There are no worm-holes in space where a man could go from earth to distant galaxies, like in Stargate.

Correct. But, space warping is a viable method of faster than light travel.

Terraforming a planet will never be possible; man can't even control the earth's atmosphere and has no idea or machinery or anything where they could.

Are you stupid, or just arrogant?

Traveling to the nearest galaxy will never be possible, because it would take over 500,000 years, assuming we could build a really fast spaceship.

Assuming faster than light travel is never developed, I agree.

We have yet to create any Artificial gravity or grow one vegetable or fruit in space that could be eaten as a meal. NASA has nothing in the works to even try to created something that would create Artificial gravity; and NASA knows that growing vegetables and fruits for the crew to eat can't be done; that is why they have not tried to do it.

There, that should be enough to disprove your comments.

You seem to be under then impression that hasn't implies can't.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

That article was not meant to be taken seriously as reality and was written by a science fiction space junkie.

I just read the nonsense in the article you cited. Did you actually read it? NASA may be having theoretic discussions, but has no clue how it would be accomplished because of the theory of relativity that state that no object can reach the speed of light, except light.

"Can we finally break the speed of light? Nasa breakthrough suggests Star Trek's 'warp drives' may not only be possible - but practical"http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

While nothing can break the speed of light, scientists have long considered the fantasy of warp speed travel, where spaceships could bend space and time on itself to move through loopholes in space.

Equations based on the laws of relativity have allowed warp speed in theory: but the energy required to make it happen would require the energy-mass of a Jupiter-sized planet.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Here is an article actually written by NASA, which is most likely where the moron who wrote the article you cited mis-stated what NASA actually said.

"Status of "Warp Drive"

The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible. This is an artifact of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Yes, there are some other perspectives; tachyons, wormholes, inflationary universe, spacetime warping, quantum paradoxes...ideas that are in credible scientific literature, but it is still too soon to know if such ideas are viable.

One of the issues that is evoked by any faster-than-light transport is time paradoxes: causality violations and implications of time travel. As if the faster than light issue wasn't tough enough, it is possible to construct elaborate scenarios where faster-than-light travel results in time travel. Time travel is considered far more impossible than light travel.http://www.nasa.gov...

Here is another NASA article that

Warp Drive, When?Ideas Based On What We"d Like To Achieve

The following section has a brief description of some ideas that have been suggested over the years for interstellar travel, ideas based on the sciences that do exist today.

If you read this article and pay close attention, you will see that all of these ideas are totally insane because it would be impossible to get the energy required e.g., matter from a neutron star.

1. Worm Hole transportation

Here is the problem with that nonsense: NASA states: "First, collect a whole bunch of super-dense matter, such as matter from a neutron star. How much?- well enough to construct a ring the size of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Then build another ring where you want the other end of your wormhole. Next, just charge'em up to some incredible voltage, and spin them up to near the speed of light -- both of them."

Anyway, anyone who thinks worm holes are possible is not dealing with a full deck.

2. Alcubierre"s "Warp Drive"

NASA States:

"Yes... First, to create this effect, you'll need a ring of negative energy wrapped around the ship, and lots of it too. It is still debated in physics whether negative energy can exist. Classical physics tends toward a "no," while quantum physics leans to a "maybe, yes." Second, you'll need a way to control this effect to turn it on and off at will. This will be especially tricky since this warp effect is a separate effect from the ship. Third, all this assumes that this whole "warp" would indeed move faster than the speed of light. This is a big unknown. And fourth, if all the previous issues weren't tough enough, these concepts evoke the same time-travel paradoxes as the wormhole concepts."

Basically, warp dives are just science fiction.

3. Negative mass propulsion

NASA States:

"It has been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. A crucial assumption to the success of this concept is that negative mass has negative inertia. Their combined interactions result in a sustained acceleration of both masses in the same direction. This concept dates back to at least 1957 with an analysis of the properties of hypothetical negative mass by Bondi, and has been revisited in the context of propulsion by Winterberg and Forward in the 1980"s.

Regarding the physics of negative mass, it is not known whether negative mass exists or if it is even theoretically allowed, but methods have been suggested to search for evidence of negative mass in the context of searching for astronomical evidence of wormholes."

Bottom line, NASA believes this is science fiction nonsense too.

4. Millis"s hypothetical "Space Drives"

NASA states:"A "space drive" can be defined as an idealized form of propulsion where the fundamental properties of matter and spacetime are used to create propulsive forces anywhere in space without having to carry and expel a reaction mass. Such an achievement would revolutionize space travel as it would circumvent the need for propellant. A variety of hypothetical space drives were created and analyzed by Millis to identify the specific problems that have to be solved to make such schemes plausible. These hypothetical drives are just briefly introduced here. Please note that these concepts are purely hypothetical constructs aimed to illustrate the remaining challenges. Before any of these space drives can become reality, a method must be discovered where a vehicle can create and control an external asymmetric force on itself without expelling a reaction mass and the method must satisfy conservation laws in the process."

Bottom Line, Millis ideas are all hypothetical and no one know how to do it or even if it is possible.

" I don't mean to imply to possibility of "warp drive" or any other sort of far-fetched propulsion capabilities, but there are already low-thrust engines already in use on communications satellites which serve as examples of engines that could accelerate a spacecraft slowly but continuously and thus could shorten Mars missions from 2 " years to only 9-12 months total round-trip duration. This answers your questions 2, 3 and 6: it is not necessary to have high acceleration to reach high speeds. Low but continuous acceleration will accomplish the same thing with less propellant, risk, and drama. Mars mission velocities using "old-fashion" chemical propellant technologies would not require appreciably great accelerations."

You need to be more careful when you cite nonsense about wrap drives or achieving or exceeding the speed of light. It is not possible, and will never happen.

As far as laser guns, are you serious?

There is no laser gun that completely destroys matter or humans like in Star Trek. Lasers can be used to melt or cut through metal, but they must be very powerful. Military lasers do not completely evaporate their targets, e.g., enemy tanks or Jets.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

That article was not meant to be taken seriously as reality and was written by a science fiction space junkie.

I just read the nonsense in the article you cited. Did you actually read it? NASA may be having theoretic discussions, but has no clue how it would be accomplished because of the theory of relativity that state that no object can reach the speed of light, except light.

I stopped reading after this, because there is no point in arguing about physics, with someone who has no understanding of physics.

Light is not an object, it is a grouping of photons which are quantums of light in a state of wave/particle duality. And, for your benefit, here is a list of things that move as fast as light:

Anything lacking mass.

The only requirement for moving at the speed of light is lacking mass. Photons are not the only particles lacking mass, simply the first discovered. The other known ones are the gluon, and up until recently the neutrino was thought to be completely massless. But, It turns out it changes flavour while in motion, with atleast two of the flavours having mass.

Also, technically speaking, information can be sent at faster than light speeds using methods such as quantum entanglement.

Well, that's your phsyics lesson done. Maybe you could go pick up a kids physics book, and learn a few things.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

That article was not meant to be taken seriously as reality and was written by a science fiction space junkie.

I just read the nonsense in the article you cited. Did you actually read it? NASA may be having theoretic discussions, but has no clue how it would be accomplished because of the theory of relativity that state that no object can reach the speed of light, except light.

I stopped reading after this, because there is no point in arguing about physics, with someone who has no understanding of physics.

Light is not an object, it is a grouping of photons which are quantums of light in a state of wave/particle duality. And, for your benefit, here is a list of things that move as fast as light:

Anything lacking mass.

The only requirement for moving at the speed of light is lacking mass. Photons are not the only particles lacking mass, simply the first discovered. The other known ones are the gluon, and up until recently the neutrino was thought to be completely massless. But, It turns out it changes flavour while in motion, with atleast two of the flavours having mass.

Also, technically speaking, information can be sent at faster than light speeds using methods such as quantum entanglement.

Well, that's your phsyics lesson done. Maybe you could go pick up a kids physics book, and learn a few things.

Thanks Dr. Physics!

Sure, light, which has no real mass, can travel at the speed of light. What is your point? Spaceships are not light, they have a lot of mass.

I read that objects could move faster than the speed of light (as long as no information is delivered during the process). But two particles can travel away from each other (for instance during the expansion of the universe) at faster than the speed of light. Isn't that "information?"

Are there any Earth-Scale examples?

Inflation is one example of an instance where an omnipotent observer could pick out two particles in the universe and say, 'these are traveling apart from each other at faster than the speed of light.'

But appreciating why 'no information can travel faster than the speed of light' is a bit amazing and a bit mundane. It's amazing because this same principle, when incorporated into our daily interactions with objects moving relative to one another, leads to the mind-bending Theory of Special Relativity. A sort of *if* particles or spaceships move in a consistent way, then the ticking of ones clock or the measuring of distances must appear to change with velocity.

On the other hand, the 'no information faster than the speed of light' is a bit straightforward. (Though it seems never to be explained that way.) The amazing bits above simply put a speed limit on the universe: nothing moves faster than the speed of light. End of story. Consequence: If you're moving at 0.6 the speed of light in one direction, and your friend is moving at 0.6 the speed of light in the other direction, how could you transmit information to one another? There's no mode that will make up the growing distance between the two of you. So, while many observers could record the information you beam out from your spaceship, your friend can't. It's not that information is or is not, but that information reception is relative.

Are there any Earth-scale examples? Check out Quantum Entanglement. It's basically the "two particles travel in opposite directions quickly" problem but scaled down to shorter times. For QE, it's actually a bit like breaking the information limit, which is why its studied so often. Imaging two balls, one is red and one is blue. (The catch here is that the color of the ball represents a particular quantum state, which is a universal fact, and so everyone in the world knows that these balls must be red or blue. And if one is blue, the other is red.) The two travel at opposite distances near the speed of light. If an observer measures the color of one of the ball -- red -- he or she knows for certainty that the other ball, well beyond the information horizon, is blue. One could argue that that's a statement that about the universality of those quantum states though, so its a bit of a cheat.

You might get a kick out of comparing the 'information horizon' to 'breaking the sound barrier.' Sound is the propagation of pressure waves. But more related, its the speed at which physical information can be sent in a solid. If you whack a balloon, sound waves bounce back and forth inside the balloon. But until a sound wave strike the far side of the balloon, that other side has no idea the former side has been whacked. Breaking the sound barrier is like breaking the information barrier: that large sonic boom is a result of traveling faster than the speed of sound can keep up.http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

"Particles Found to Travel Faster Than Speed of Light"

An Italian experiment has unveiled evidence that fundamental particles known as neutrinos can travel faster than light. Other researchers are cautious about the result, but if it stands further scrutiny, the finding would overturn the most fundamental rule of modern physics"that nothing travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second.http://www.scientificamerican.com...

A few years ago scientists figured out that neutrinos have a mass, although a very small one.

A neutrino is an electrically neutral, weakly interacting elementary subatomic particle with half-integer spin. Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay, or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the Sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Quantum Physics

What Is Quantum Physics?:

Quantum physics is the study of the behavior of matter and energy at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels. In the early 20th century, it was discovered that the laws that govern macroscopic objects do not function the same in such small realms.http://physics.about.com...

Surely, you are not trying to say that because because something at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels may have gone faster than the speed of light, which hasn't been proven, that that has any application to space flight or the real world?

I guess if we could fit a 100,000 lbs space ship in the OPERA tube- Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (high-energy physics laboratory), we could see if it too went faster than the speed of light. But, there is no OPERA tube going to Mars, so our spaceship would have to travel in the real world.

Try again with your nonsense, Dr. Physics.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

That article was not meant to be taken seriously as reality and was written by a science fiction space junkie.

I just read the nonsense in the article you cited. Did you actually read it? NASA may be having theoretic discussions, but has no clue how it would be accomplished because of the theory of relativity that state that no object can reach the speed of light, except light.

I stopped reading after this, because there is no point in arguing about physics, with someone who has no understanding of physics.

Light is not an object, it is a grouping of photons which are quantums of light in a state of wave/particle duality. And, for your benefit, here is a list of things that move as fast as light:

Anything lacking mass.

The only requirement for moving at the speed of light is lacking mass. Photons are not the only particles lacking mass, simply the first discovered. The other known ones are the gluon, and up until recently the neutrino was thought to be completely massless. But, It turns out it changes flavour while in motion, with atleast two of the flavours having mass.

Also, technically speaking, information can be sent at faster than light speeds using methods such as quantum entanglement.

Well, that's your phsyics lesson done. Maybe you could go pick up a kids physics book, and learn a few things.

Thanks Dr. Physics!

Sure, light, which has no real mass, can travel at the speed of light. What is your point? Spaceships are not light, they have a lot of mass.

I read that objects could move faster than the speed of light (as long as no information is delivered during the process). But two particles can travel away from each other (for instance during the expansion of the universe) at faster than the speed of light. Isn't that "information?"

Are there any Earth-Scale examples?

Inflation is one example of an instance where an omnipotent observer could pick out two particles in the universe and say, 'these are traveling apart from each other at faster than the speed of light.'

But appreciating why 'no information can travel faster than the speed of light' is a bit amazing and a bit mundane. It's amazing because this same principle, when incorporated into our daily interactions with objects moving relative to one another, leads to the mind-bending Theory of Special Relativity. A sort of *if* particles or spaceships move in a consistent way, then the ticking of ones clock or the measuring of distances must appear to change with velocity.

On the other hand, the 'no information faster than the speed of light' is a bit straightforward. (Though it seems never to be explained that way.) The amazing bits above simply put a speed limit on the universe: nothing moves faster than the speed of light. End of story. Consequence: If you're moving at 0.6 the speed of light in one direction, and your friend is moving at 0.6 the speed of light in the other direction, how could you transmit information to one another? There's no mode that will make up the growing distance between the two of you. So, while many observers could record the information you beam out from your spaceship, your friend can't. It's not that information is or is not, but that information reception is relative.

Are there any Earth-scale examples? Check out Quantum Entanglement. It's basically the "two particles travel in opposite directions quickly" problem but scaled down to shorter times. For QE, it's actually a bit like breaking the information limit, which is why its studied so often. Imaging two balls, one is red and one is blue. (The catch here is that the color of the ball represents a particular quantum state, which is a universal fact, and so everyone in the world knows that these balls must be red or blue. And if one is blue, the other is red.) The two travel at opposite distances near the speed of light. If an observer measures the color of one of the ball -- red -- he or she knows for certainty that the other ball, well beyond the information horizon, is blue. One could argue that that's a statement that about the universality of those quantum states though, so its a bit of a cheat.

You might get a kick out of comparing the 'information horizon' to 'breaking the sound barrier.' Sound is the propagation of pressure waves. But more related, its the speed at which physical information can be sent in a solid. If you whack a balloon, sound waves bounce back and forth inside the balloon. But until a sound wave strike the far side of the balloon, that other side has no idea the former side has been whacked. Breaking the sound barrier is like breaking the information barrier: that large sonic boom is a result of traveling faster than the speed of sound can keep up.http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

"Particles Found to Travel Faster Than Speed of Light"

An Italian experiment has unveiled evidence that fundamental particles known as neutrinos can travel faster than light. Other researchers are cautious about the result, but if it stands further scrutiny, the finding would overturn the most fundamental rule of modern physics"that nothing travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second.http://www.scientificamerican.com...

A few years ago scientists figured out that neutrinos have a mass, although a very small one.

A neutrino is an electrically neutral, weakly interacting elementary subatomic particle with half-integer spin. Neutrinos are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay, or nuclear reactions such as those that take place in the Sun, in nuclear reactors, or when cosmic rays hit atoms.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Quantum Physics

What Is Quantum Physics?:

Quantum physics is the study of the behavior of matter and energy at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels. In the early 20th century, it was discovered that the laws that govern macroscopic objects do not function the same in such small realms.http://physics.about.com...

Surely, you are not trying to say that because because something at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels may have gone faster than the speed of light, which hasn't been proven, that that has any application to space flight or the real world?

I guess if we could fit a 100,000 lbs space ship in the OPERA tube- Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (high-energy physics laboratory), we could see if it too went faster than the speed of light. But, there is no OPERA tube going to Mars, so our spaceship would have to travel in the real world.

Try again with your nonsense, Dr. Physics.

And this is why I said I refuse to argue physics with you. I'm guessing you d

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

Surely, you are not trying to say that because because something at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels may have gone faster than the speed of light, which hasn't been proven, that that has any application to space flight or the real world?

I guess if we could fit a 100,000 lbs space ship in the OPERA tube- Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (high-energy physics laboratory), we could see if it too went faster than the speed of light. But, there is no OPERA tube going to Mars, so our spaceship would have to travel in the real world.

Try ag

I have forgotten more about science and physics than you will ever know.

You have proven nothing.

Your examples are not real world and have nothing to do with the current reality of space travel.

You are too dishonest to admit you are wrong.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Surely, you are not trying to say that because because something at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels may have gone faster than the speed of light, which hasn't been proven, that that has any application to space flight or the real world?

I guess if we could fit a 100,000 lbs space ship in the OPERA tube- Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (high-energy physics laboratory), we could see if it too went faster than the speed of light. But, there is no OPERA tube going to Mars, so our spaceship would have to travel in the real world.

Try ag

I have forgotten more about science and physics than you will ever know.

Yeah, sure......

You have proven nothing.

Except you wrong.

Your examples are not real world and have nothing to do with the current reality of space travel.

Yeah, theoretics has no real world applications......

You are too dishonest to admit you are wrong.

Sure, let's go with that....

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

Surely, you are not trying to say that because because something at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels may have gone faster than the speed of light, which hasn't been proven, that that has any application to space flight or the real world?

I guess if we could fit a 100,000 lbs space ship in the OPERA tube- Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (high-energy physics laboratory), we could see if it too went faster than the speed of light. But, there is no OPERA tube going to Mars, so our spaceship would have to travel in the real world.

Try ag

I have forgotten more about science and physics than you will ever know.

Yeah, sure......

You have proven nothing.

Except you wrong.

Your examples are not real world and have nothing to do with the current reality of space travel.

Yeah, theoretics has no real world applications......

You are too dishonest to admit you are wrong.

Sure, let's go with that....

What exactly do you think you have proven?

I have proven you are wrong about laser guns.

I have proven you are wrong about space ships being able to go the speed of light.

You have proven nothing.

You are another science fiction junkie who has no clue about what is really happening in the real world of space travel.

You are a totally dishonest person who won't admit being wrong.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

At 8/21/2013 8:39:59 AM, RoyLatham wrote:Here is copy of the interchange from the other thread. http://www.debate.org... GWL-CPA now claims I am delusional rather than retarded.

At 8/16/2013 8:04:24 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:Wow, how retarded.

Retarded? I got my degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics from M.I.T. Where did you get yours?

How do we get the equipment up to the moon to did and build an underground city? It took 31 trips to build the ISS - International Space Station over a ten year period; and, we did not have to send millions of tons of digging equipment up there to do that.

The cost estimates are around $20 billion. It's not an underground city. It's a capsule habitation for something like a dozen people. It's certainly expensive, but unlike many space projects there is an economic return from the fuel obtained.

You folks are watching too much science fiction.NASA is no where near colonizing the moon or mining anything.

That's a political decision, not a problem of technology. There are lots of things that government spends money on. The US current spends $74 billion per year on food stamps, for example. If the people do not want to fund space, then so be it. But it's not a problem with the technology being unavailable.

Space exploration and space technology will continue without government participation under the profit motive. The commercial business is in getting payloads into synchronous orbit. Space refueling lowers the cost of going from low earth orbit to synchronous orbit, so there is potential profit in the project. Also, it takes a low of fuel to get the space shuttle or it's successors down from low earth orbit. Now all the fuel for the return has to be carried up there. If fuel were available in space, the shuttle could carry a lot more payload up into orbit rather than carrying the return fuel.

In the long run, we'll be better off getting government out of the business.

All you folks need to understand that Star Trek was science fiction.

Be happy to debate the economics with you.

My degree is from Badly University in Peoria, IL; I have a BS in accounting and am a CPA - Certified Public Accountant. My expertise is verifying or auditing financial information, cost accounting and GAAP - Generally Accepted Accounting Standards, which apply to all for profit organizations. I have had courses in Governmental Accounting (Fund Accounting) and knowledge of that is required to pass the CPA exam.

Governmental Accounting is used to track funds received by a governmental entity, and is sometime called "Fund Accounting," which can have many different funds for different purposes, e.g., General fund, Special Revenue funds, Capital Project funds, Debt Service funds, and Special Assessment funds.

Fund accounting is an accounting system emphasizing accountability rather than profitability, used by non-profit organizations and governments. In this system, a fund is a self-balancing set of accounts, segregated for specific purposes in accordance with laws and regulations or special restrictions and limitations.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Most non-accountants do not understand cost accounting or GAAP, and most likely have no knowledge of governmental or fund accounting principles. Most accountants and CPAs are not engineers and are not familiar with engineering principles, and do not have the math background needed, e.g., calculus, dynamical systems and differential equations.http://en.wikipedia.org...

I am impressed with your credentials.

I did not mean to offend you with the delusional comment.

The point I was trying to make is that when you read internet articles about how much something cost, especially when it comes to space travel, it is easy to be misled.

Governmental accounting or Fund accounting is different than GAAP. Under GAPP, if a private company builds something, e.g., a building, every cost required to build that building is captured and reflected in two primary financial statements, i.e., Balance Sheet and Income Statement. It is relatively easy to figure out what the building cost to build.

In Governmental accounting, it is somewhat more complex to figure out how much was actually spent to build something because it can be built from different governmental funds, e.g., Capital project fund, special revenue or a proprietary fund. And, these can overlap e.g., if the building has a solar energy plant that cost $10 million, that $10 million may have been paid by another special fund separated from the building fund. If the cost of the building was 100 million per the building fund and you do not know about the special fund where the $10 million solar energy plant was paid for, you might think the total cost of the building was only $100 million, when in fact the total cost of the building with solar plant was $110 million. The government is not hiding these separate costs. But, it is sometimes very difficult to figure out exactly how much was spent.

That is why it is hard to figure out what has actually been spent by NASA on anything. For example, the cost of the shuttle program may be cited as $209 billion; but, that most likely does not include the costs of building the KSC - Kennedy Space Center that lunches the rockets, e.g., launch pad, tracking equipment, land computers, etc.. The KSC was built with other funds and accounted for separately in another fund. I haven"t been able to find anywhere what was spend to build the KSC. Going back and looking at the Federal Government budgets and spending going back to 1968 would be very time consuming. Its annual budget for 2010 was $350 million.http://www.space.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Surely, you are not trying to say that because because something at the molecular, atomic, nuclear, and even smaller microscopic levels may have gone faster than the speed of light, which hasn't been proven, that that has any application to space flight or the real world?

I guess if we could fit a 100,000 lbs space ship in the OPERA tube- Oscillation Project with Emulsion-tRacking Apparatus (high-energy physics laboratory), we could see if it too went faster than the speed of light. But, there is no OPERA tube going to Mars, so our spaceship would have to travel in the real world.

Try ag

I have forgotten more about science and physics than you will ever know.

Yeah, sure......

You have proven nothing.

Except you wrong.

Your examples are not real world and have nothing to do with the current reality of space travel.

Yeah, theoretics has no real world applications......

You are too dishonest to admit you are wrong.

Sure, let's go with that....

What exactly do you think you have proven?

A: that you don't even have a basic understanding of physics.B: that you have no understanding of the technology behind and surrounding space flight.C: that you post articles without reading a word they say.

I have proven you are wrong about laser guns.

That's a misnomer. The word would simply be laser. Even if it did have a suffix, it wouldn't be gun, because a gun is something that fires a projectile. While a laser is something that creates a beam of high energy photons. There is no firing, and technically no projectiles. But, besides that, no you haven't.

I have proven you are wrong about space ships being able to go the speed of light.

No, you really haven't.

You have proven nothing.

Except for the things listed above.

You are another science fiction junkie who has no clue about what is really happening in the real world of space travel.

You are a totally dishonest person who won't admit being wrong.

Yeah, sure, whatever....

I'm curious, what color is the sky in your world?

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

That's a misnomer. The word would simply be laser. Even if it did have a suffix, it wouldn't be gun, because a gun is something that fires a projectile. While a laser is something that creates a beam of high energy photons. There is no firing, and technically no projectiles. But, besides that, no you haven't.

The color of the sky depends on many variables and time of day. I have never been to Ireland; maybe in Ireland it is always blue?

"During daylight, the sky appears to be blue because air scatters blue sunlight more than it scatters red. The sky can turn a multitude of colors such as red, orange, purple and yellow (especially near sunset or sunrise) when the light must pass through a much longer path (or optical depth) through the atmosphere."http://en.wikipedia.org...

You are an interesting young person. I believe in realism, whereas, you appear to be an eternal optimist that rejects the limitations of reality. You appear to be hung-up on theoretical physics, which relies mainly on mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." " Albert Einstein

One big problem with theoretical physics, it is just theory, not reality. Whether a sub-atomic particle may have slightly exceeded the speed of light, (which hasn't been proven) or not, does not mean that anything with mass can, e.g., something weighing an ounce. When you read the following by two applied math theorists, pay particular attention to what Professor Jim Hill stated:

'We are mathematicians, not physicists, so we've approached this problem from a theoretical mathematical perspective,' said Dr. Cox. 'Should it, however, be proven that motion faster than light is possible, then that would be game changing. 'Our paper doesn't try and explain how this could be achieved, just how equations of motion might operate in such regimes.'"

"Could we travel faster than light? Researchers show how Einstein's own theories could lead to travel at speeds previously thought impossible"

Some applied mathematicians believe Einstein"s theory of special relativity is wrong and objects can go faster, but other applied mathematicians believe Einstein was right on the money. These applied mathematicians that believe it is possible do state:

"Professor Hill said: 'Since the introduction of special relativity there has been much speculation as to whether or not it might be possible to travel faster than the speed of light, noting that there is no substantial evidence to suggest that this is presently feasible with any existing transportation mechanisms. About this time last year, experiments at CERN, the European center for particle physics in Switzerland, suggested that perhaps neutrinos could be accelerated just a very small amount faster than the speed of light. However, neither Einstein's equations nor the new theory can describe objects moving at the speed of light itself. 'We are mathematicians, not physicists, so we've approached this problem from a theoretical mathematical perspective,' said Dr Cox. 'Should it, however, be proven that motion faster than light is possible, then that would be game changing. 'Our paper doesn't try and explain how this could be achieved, just how equations of motion might operate in such regimes.'http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

I understand the limits of the real world; and I have more than a basic understanding of physics. I have read many of Stephen Hawking"s books, my most two favorite being "A Brief History of Time" and "Black Holes and Baby Universes." He is a great theoretical physicist. I have read many books by Carl Sagan, American astronomer, by two favorites are "Dragons of Eden" and "Cosmos." However, both Stephen and Carl were dealing with theoretical possibility, not reality.

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.

In theory, it should be possible to clone humans or organs in a test tube; but, no one has done it (i.e., cloned an entire human or a liver or even a finger.) Some theorists believe viruses like HIV and the common cold can be cured, others do not.

Contrary to your insults, I have an understanding of the technology behind and surrounding space flight. I have written NASA to confirm my understanding of the technology behind and surrounding space flight and the issues that currently mankind and NASA have not solved. NASA has responded by letter, email and sent me a link to download their studies and other information that discuss the real-world issues involved.

I guess if you reject all the scientists at NASA, then you would reject what I am saying. After all, the scientists at NASA couldn't possibly know more than a 20-year old with a high school education.

I have read what you have said; but, you are still not dealing with what can and cannot be done at this time or in the foreseeable future, if ever. You are dealing with the very speculative theatrical issues, mainly at the atomic level that are possible in mathematical models that are based on many assumptions that have not been proven in the actual physical world or reality, just on paper.

Of course I know that you do not put a physical bullet in a laser weapon, put it is still a gun. The lasers used to cut metal or in surgery of course are not guns; but, you are still pointing or aiming them at the intended target. You are playing the semantics game. The beam of light becomes the bullet.

"Laser guns describe guns converted from their regular ammunition to using lasers to hit reflective targets. These have been used in clay pigeon shooting and were suggested for use in the Modern pentathlon at the 2012 Summer Olympics after a successful trial at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics in Singapore. Use of these laser guns opens up new venues for gun sports because of the increased levels of safety."http://en.wikipedia.org...

In the Star Trek and other science fiction movies, the weapons used were called various names.

"Rayguns are a type of fictional directed-energy weapon. They have various alternate names: ray gun, death ray, beam gun, blaster, laser gun, phaser, zap gun etc. They are a well-known feature of science fiction; for such stories they typically have the general function of guns. According to the stories, when activated, a raygun emits a ray, typically visible, usually lethal if it hits a human target, often destructive if it hits mechanical objects, with properties and other effects unspecified or varying."http://en.wikipedia.org...

A very early example of a raygun is the Heat-Ray featured in H. G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds (1898). Science fiction during the 1920s described death rays. Early science fiction often described or depicted raygun beams making bright light and loud noise like lightning or large electric arcs. Nikola Tesla's attempts at developing directed-energy weapons encouraged the imagination of many writers.

When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Soon after the invention of lasers during 1960, such devices became briefly fashionable as a directed-energy weapon for science fiction stories. For instance, characters of the Lost in Space TV series (1965"1968) and of the Star Trek pilot episode "The Cage" (1964) carried handheld laser weapons.[2]

By the late 1960s and 1970s, as the laser's limits as a weapon became evident, rayguns were dubbed "phasers" (for Star Trek), "blasters" (Star Wars), "pulse rifles", "plasma rifles" and so forth.

In his book Physics of the Impossible Michio Kaku used gamma ray bursts as an evidence to illustrate that extremely powerful rayguns like the one used to destroy a planet on Death Star in the Star Wars franchise do not violate known physical laws and theories. He further analyses the problem of rayguns' power sources.http://en.wikipedia.org...

The point I was making is that modern day laser weapons do not completely incinerate or vaporize the targets, human or not. And, they have many limitations. This is just one of the many examples of where science fiction has proven to be BS or nonsense.

The phase, "Reality is a B!tch" is apropos. Reality is harsh, but, at some point it must be faced; you can't live in a delusional world all your life. I an not telling anyone not to dream; but, dreams sometimes can't become reality.

If you want to learn the reality of Laser Weapons, please read this article.

A: that you don't even have a basic understanding of physics.B: that you have no understanding of the technology behind and surrounding space flight.C: that you post articles without reading a word they say.

Just in case you are really interested in learning more about what NASA is doing and want to get information from them that deals with reality, please do the following:

We have yet to create any Artificial gravity or grow one vegetable or fruit in space that could be eaten as a meal. NASA has nothing in the works to even try to created something that would create Artificial gravity; and NASA knows that growing vegetables and fruits for the crew to eat can't be done; that is why they have not tried to do it.

Lettuce, peas and radishes are just a few vegetables that are found in a summer garden. But did you know these same vegetables also can be grown in space? Crew members aboard the International Space Station have been growing such plants and vegetables for years in their "space garden." http://www.nasa.gov...

There is no particular problem growing plants in space. Plants that grow under water have buoyancy that offsets gravity. The grow just fine. Plants grow by photosynthesis, and that works with or without gravity. Ordinary plants don't seem to care.

Artificial gravity is also not a problem. In low earth orbit, gravity is only a few percent less than it is on the earth's surface. Weightlessness is achieved by offsetting gravity with centrifugal force. So is acceleration due to centrifugal force in some way different from acceleration due to gravity? No. Thanks to Einstein we know that they are absolutely indistinguishable by any means.

For all purposes artificial gravity is achieved by rotating a space vehicle. Science fiction often portrays this with a wheel-shaped vehicle. However, a barbell shape suffices, with two pods rotating about the center of mass. One concept of a Mars mission uses a living capsule separated by a trusswork to a fuel-and-engine module. The system rotates around its center of mass to provide artificial gravity. Once started, no energy is required to keep it going.